* Dimitri Fontaine (dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr) wrote:
> The rules that PostgreSQL follows to know where to load the library from
> are not changed *at all* by this patch. In my book, it makes the whole
> topic irrelevant to the review.

I'm really quite tired of the constant dismissal of anything brought up
by anyone regarding any changes about anything.

I didn't suggest anywhere that the proposed patch changed the rules at
all- instead I was trying to point out that by adding this functionality
and *not* changing the way that lookup is done *is going to cause

[... quotes from the docs which aren't relevant ...]

> If you want to change the rules and provide a way to resolve the object
> file name to use on a per-extension level, fee free to propose a patch.

Or, I could simply voice my opinion that this patch *should not go in*
without such a change, or at *least* some thought and discussion about
what the right answer is here.  I'm evidently not alone with this
concern either as it's exactly (as I understand it at least; I don't
mean to put words into his mouth) what Peter *just* brought up too.

I'd really appreciate it if you would stop trying to seperate every
other possible thing to do with anything from this patch except the one
little thing you want.  This patch touches code related to extensions
and it's necessary for us to consider it in that broader light.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to